Debate over Transylvania

[Dracula]

Steppe people with funny little hats fighting against Gypsies and Vampires over Transylvania?:hmmm:

The discussion is now on the right path.

[snipa]

This is becoming ridiculous ! Read Wiki about Transylvania,chapter "Conquest of Transylvania by the magyars and incorporation into the Kingdom of Hungary" :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania

It is said that by hungarian sources - Transylvania had 3 rulers before the magyars came(13century),all of them ruling over romanians,slavs and germans...The three were defeated by the magyars in time. So how tf can they defeat somebody who wasn't there before that ?!?!

so now Anonymous wrote romanians and not vlach? He newer wrote about vlach and romanians!!!! newer!
btw dont forget Anonymous wrote his GH in 13th c.! The only genuine sources from hungarians arrive was created in Byzance! And what a surprise there is no vlach, romanian mention etc.... Check if u want...

The earliest Hungarian chronicle, the 'Old Gesta', was repeatedly expanded and reworked into several versions between the 11th and the 14th centuries. Unfortunately, it offers only a brief account of how the Hungarians first occupied Transylvania, killed their leader Álmos (probably in a ritual sacrifice), and then moved on to 'Pannonia'. The source fails to make clear where Gyula was coming from when, while hunting, he chanced upon a 'white castle' (i.e. the ruins of Apulum), or what people he might have encountered there. Nor does the source put a date on the Hungarians' arrival in Transylvania; that can only be inferred from the comment that King Stephen (St. Stephen) took over Transylvania from the third Gyula, i.e. the grandson of the one just mentioned. At the beginning of the 13th century, these mysteries drew the attention King Béla III's scribe, a man who modestly signed his work Master P., and who is known to posterity as Anonymus.

Anonymus relates the Hungarian Conquest of Transylvania in chapters 23–27 of his chronicle: 'When Tas, Szabolcs, and Tétény (Thosu, Zobolsu, Tuhutum) [...] reached a depopulated region, they remained there for a few days and fortified its borders with mighty ramparts (chap. 23). They had been there for some time when Tétény, father of Horka (Tuhutum pater Horca), learned from the local people that there was a good land lying beyond the forests (terre ultra silvane), ruled by some Blak named Gyalu (Gelou quidam blacus) (chap. 24). Tétény [...] sent ahead a clever man, {1-334.} Father Agmánd Apafarkas (patrem Opaforcos Ogmand)... Tétény's spy, scouting around like a fox, took note of that land's richness and inhabitants [...] spoke often with its master [...] and learned that the land was irrigated by fine rivers, rich in alluvial gold deposits, that there was much salt to be mined, and that the inhabitants were the vilest people in the world. They are contemptible because they are Blas and Slav people (blasii et sclavi), they have only bows and arrows for weapons [...] they are much harassed by the Cumanians and the Pechenegs (chap. 25). Leaving his companions behind, Tétény headed eastward, to the land beyond the forests, to confront the Blak leader Gyalu... Gyalu rode out to meet him and halt his advance at the Meszes passes (per protas Mezesinas). But Tétény, having crossed the forest in a day, reached the waters of the Almás (Almas)... (chap. 26). There ensued a fierce struggle in which Gyalu's warriors were defeated, and many of them were killed, while many others were taken prisoner... Gyalu fled, together with a few followers, toward his fortress on the Szamos (Zomus) River, but he was killed by Tétény's warriors near the Kapus (Copus) creek. When the people of that land learned that their master was dead, they proposed peace and hailed Tétény, father of Horka, as their new leader. They testified to their loyalty by taking an oath of allegiance at a place known as Esküllő (Esculeu).'[1]

Anonymus' account of the Hungarian conquest of Transylvania must be assessed in the context of what he has to say about the entire Carpathian Basin. In his rendition, information regarding the peoples that the conquering Hungarians would find in the Carpathian Basin is conveyed by the Russian rulers of Kiev and Halych (Galicia) to Álmos when the latter passes through their lands (chaps. 9 and 11). According to the Kievans, 'that land is inhabited by Slavs, Bulgars, Blachs, and the Romans' shepherds.' The Galicians offer more detail on those who had lived in that land since Attila's death. Roman lords had occupied Pannonia as far as the Danube, and had settled their shepherds there. Bulgaria's master, {1-335.} the great khan (Keanus Magnus), had occupied the land between the Danube and Tisza rivers all the way to the Polish and Russian borders, and he settled Slavs and Bulgars in the region. The country was now ruled by one of his descendants, Salan (Salanus). (It is later revealed that one of the latter's military commanders bears the name Laborc.) The land between the rivers Tisza, Maros, and Szamos, reaching to Transylvania, had been occupied by Marót (Morout) and his 'Kozar' people; it was now ruled by his grandson Ménmarót (Menumorout). Galád (Glad), who came from Vidin, had seized, with the help of the Cumanians, the land lying between the Danube and Tisza, south of the Maros (chap. 11). The Kievans failed to mention the Khazars, and the Galicians omitted the Blachs, and the information given by the two sources did not cover the entire Carpathian Basin: it left out the part of Upper Hungary that lies west of the Garam River, as well as Transylvania. However, Anonymus later mentions these regions: the 'Slavs of Nyitra' are under the rule of the Czech prince, who appointed Zobor as their governor (chaps. 33–37), while Transylvania is inhabited by Slavs and Blachs, and ruled by the Blak Gyalu (Gelou) (chaps. 24–27). In chapter 50, Anonymus affirms that Pannonia is ruled by the 'Romans' and populated by 'Slavs and Pannonians'. In chapter 44, Glad's Cumanian warriors are assisted by Bulgars and Blaks in their resistance to the Hungarians. Finally, with regard to Ménmarót's domain, the 'Kozárs' noted in chapter 9 earn no further mention; instead, in chapters 50 and 51, Anonymus refers to the presence of Székelys (Siculi, Sicli).

It is obvious from these references that Anonymus had simply projected back to the time of the Conquest the ethnic and political pattern that prevailed in Hungary's vicinity in his own time, i.e. in the early 13th century. At the time of the Conquest, Pannonia belonged to the Eastern Frankish empire; only after 962, when it became part of the Germanic Roman empire, could it be considered 'Roman'. Until 895, the Slavs of Nyitra had been ruled by the {1-336.} Moravians (known to the Hungarians as 'Marót'); the Hungarians seized the territory from the Moravians, and not from the Czech prince, who took control of the Moravian lands lying beyond Hungary's borders only after 955. The case of the Bulgars is even more instructive. Anonymus was evidently not aware that at the time of the Conquest, they had an independent state and were called Nándors by the Hungarians; only after 1000, when they came under Byzantine rule, did the Hungarians begin to refer to them as Bulgárs or Bolgárs. This probably explains why Anonymus considers Salanus, Menumorout, and probably Glad as well, to be subjects of Byzantium, although he does not claim that the last two are Bulgars. It was during Anonymus' lifetime, in 1185, that the Bulgars and their Romanian and Cumanian allies shook off Byzantium's yoke; and this knowledge probably inspired him to situate these three peoples (the Romanians being referred to as 'Blaks') in Glad's domain. Of the 'states' surrounding the future Hungary at the time of the Conquest, he identifies correctly only those of the Poles and the Russians, and he judges that the influence of these two states did not extend to the Carpathian Basin.

Anonymus believed that Transdanubia, the Nyitra region, the area between the Danube and the Tisza, and Transylvania were all inhabited by 'Slavs' (Sclavus), who lacked political autonomy and were ruled, respectively, by Romans, Czechs, Bulgars, and Blaks; the Hungarians expelled these rulers and subjugated the indigenous 'Slavs'. All of the above assumptions inform Anonymus' conception of the Hungarian Conquest: the Carpathian Basin had been part of Attila's empire, and Álmos, who descended from Attila, was its rightful heir. The political forces that ruled over the region after the disintegration of Attila's empire were eventually driven out by the Hungarians and survived as Hungary's neighbours, while their Slavic subjects came under Hungarian rule. Thus, according to Anonymus, the Slavs were the only people to enjoy ethnic continuity in the Carpathian Basin; the Romans, Czechs, Bulgars, and Romanians (Blaks) did not.

{1-337.} Anonymus had no need for historical data to support his view of Hungary at the time of the Conquest; he simply noted what countries adjoined the Hungary of his day, and drew retroactive conclusions. As noted earlier, Anonymus converted toponyms into the names of Conquest-era potentates; Salán, Laborc, Ménmarót, Galád, Zobor and Gyalu must have been his inventions, for none of them figure in the sources that were available to him. Indeed, although he must have been familiar with some early variant of the 'Old Gesta', he purposely ignored the names that appeared therein, such as Marót, the latter's son Svatopluk, and perhaps Keanus Magnus. By the time that Marót was mentioned in the 'Old Gesta' as Svatopluk's father, the name's derivation from the term applied to the Moravians, 'Marót', was long forgotten, and thus Anonymus could not deduce that a Moravian kingdom had existed in the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Conquest. He therefore chose to ignore Svatopluk, relegated Marót and the great khan to a distant past, and imagined that the Hungarians encountered these figures' descendants, to whom he gave the names Ménmarót and Salán. He considered that the 'Old Gesta' was not a reliable source, particularly in its claim that the Hungarian conquerors' first stop had been Transylvania. He preferred to believe that the Hungarians had moved in through the Verecke Pass, and that the name applied by foreigners to these Magyars — Ungari, Hungari — was derived from the first locality that they occupied, Ungvár, or Hungvár. He further believed that their main enemies had been the Bulgars, and not the Moravians. Historians later speculated that Anonymus culled the notion of 'Romans' shepherds' from the 'Old Gesta'. This may not be the case, for the first authentic reference to this dates from 1147, when Odo de Deuil, who had travelled across Hungary, situated the pastures of Julius Caesar (i.e., the Romans) in that land. Thus the information may have come from a French source, and it may well have been conveyed back by none other than Anonymus, who had pursued studies in Paris.

{1-338.} The first mention of Transylvania in Anonymus' chronicle is in chapter 11, where he refers to it by the Hungarian name Erdeuelu. He notes that it lay on the eastern border of the domain of Menumorout, the lord of Bihar, but then seems to forget about the place. It may be surmised that if Anonymus neglected to mention the ruler and people of Transylvania, it is because he was unwilling to broach the matter of that region's conquest — perhaps because he did not want to contradict the 'Old Gesta', which, as noted, indicates that the Hungarians had made their first stop in Transylvania. However, while working on his chronicle, he came across information that compelled him to take some account of Transylvania. Unwilling to alter his initial thesis, Anonymus turned history on its head; his Hungarians, instead of moving westward from Transylvania, are depicted as entering that region from the west.

In Anonymus' rendition, Árpád, who was encamped at Szerencs, dispatched three of the seven chieftains, Tas, Szabolcs, and Tétény, to confront Menumorout (chaps. 20–23). They conquered the northern part of Menumorout's domain: the forces of Tas and Szabolcs advanced to the fortress at Szatmár, while the rest of the army, led by Tétény and his son, Horka, occupied the Nyírség as far as the Ér River. When the two armies reunited at the Meszes Pass, the chieftains 'decided to draw the border of Árpád's country [...] at the point where the land ceased to be inhabited'; there they marked the frontier with a stone gate and felled trees. The story's logical continuation would be the return of Tas and Szabolcs to Szerencs after their victory, but this happens only in chapter 28; forgetting that he has already related the marking of the conquered land's eastern border, Anonymus inserts four chapters (24–27) describing Tétény's military campaign in Transylvania. He concludes that tale as follows: 'Tétény ruled in peace and with good fortune over the conquered land, which remained in the hands of his descendants until the reign of St. Stephen. Tétény begot a son, {1-339.} Horka, who had two sons, named Gyula (Geula) and Zombor (Zumbor). Gyula had two daughters, Karold (Caroldu) and Sarolt (Saroltu). King St. Stephen was the son of Sarolt. And Zombor's son was the younger Gyula (minor), father of Buja and Bonyha (pater Bue et Bucne). It was during this Gyula's rule that St. Stephen seized the lands beyond the forest. Gyula had been too proud to become a Christian and, although related to the king's mother, had often acted in a manner hostile to St. Stephen; he was therefore taken in fetters to Hungary and kept imprisoned for the rest of his life.'

Anonymus digresses in relating Tétény's Transylvanian campaign and, what is worse, becomes mired in contradictions. Tétény, unlike Tas, Szabolcs, and their relatives, disappears from the narrative. When Anonymus returns in chapter 50 to the story, begun in chapter 22, of the expedition against Menumorout, new names figure as the army's leaders, men who had previously conquered Transdanubia. Forgetting apparently that he had already related how Tétény occupied Transylvania, he now has Menumorout fleeing to that region — a curious choice, since he would have been heading straight into the arms of the Hungarian occupiers. Moreover, Anonymus fails to make good on his promise in chapter 6 to relate how the Maglód clan was descended from Tétény. Instead, he affirms in chapter 27 that the Gyulas of Transylvania descended from Tétény. The scribe credits Tétény with the conquest of Transylvania, turns Tétény's grandson Gyula into the Gyula who rules Transylvania, and says nothing about a Maglód clan. In fact, there are no documents testifying to the existence of such a clan. A clan bearing the double name Gyula-Zombor did live in the diocese of Vác during the Middle Ages, but there is no documentary evidence to link them to the Transylvanian Zsombors. With regard to Tétény's son and grandson, Horka and Gyula, Anonymus was not aware that 'Gyula' and 'Harka' (as well as another name in his chronicle, 'Kende') served merely as honorifics {1-340.} at the time of the Conquest, and became proper names only during the monarchy. Thus Tétény may have been a 'harka', and the father of another 'harka', but it is not known whether he was related to two subsequent 'harkas' who lived in the mid-900s and whose proper names were Kál and Bulcsú.

While it is evident that Anonymus had converted honorifics into the real names Gyula and Horka, the source of the name Tétény is less clear: he may have borrowed it from a Hungarian family's legend, or from the locality, on the Danube, called Tétény. Gelou was an authentic personal name as well as a toponym that is noted in the chronicle: the fortress of Gyalu, at the confluence of the Szamos and Kapus rivers. This Hungarian name, of ancient Turkic origin, occurs as a toponym in other regions of Hungary as well. Curiously, Anonymus did not choose a royal castle — such as Kolozsvár or Doboka, both proximate to the scene of his story — for the seat of the Transylvanian Blak leader. Instead, he opted for the Transylvanian bishop's castle at Gyula — perhaps because it was the closest major fort in relation to the Almás River and the Meszes Pass, and because it sounded similar to the leader's name, Gyalu.

The derivation of the term 'Blach' is somewhat clearer. The most likely source is the early 12th-century Russian chronicle of Niestor, which Anonymus either consulted or learned about from the Hungarian entourage of Prince András when the latter served as Galicia's ruler between 1188 and 1190. According to Niestor, the Hungarian conquerors encountered Volohs (Volohi) and Slavs in the Carpathian Basin: 'The Slavs were the earlier inhabitants, but their land had been occupied by the Volohs. Then the Hungarians (Ugri) expelled the Volohs, appropriated the land, and settled down among the Slavs, making the latter their subjects; ever since, the land has been known as that of the Hungarians (Ugorska).'[2] The significance of 'Volohs' is revealed in an earlier passage of the
chronicle, when Niestor, listing the peoples of Europe, situates the Volohs near England; thus, for Niestor, 'Voloh' identified the French, and, {1-341.} more broadly, all the peoples who spoke neo-Latin or belonged to the Roman empire. However, Anonymus could not know that Niestor's Volohs were one and the same as the 'Romans' who, in his own chronicle, were expelled from Transdanubia by the Hungarians, and he therefore situated them elsewhere in the Carpathian Basin. This is why, in chapter 9, he makes separate mention of the 'Blachs' and of the 'Romans' shepherds'. He evidently associated the latter with the Germanic Roman empire, observing that even in his own day, 'they continued to graze upon Hungary's wealth'; thus he held them to be important foreigners, and not mere shepherds. As for Niestor's Volohs, Anonymus noted the similarity between their name and that of the Vlach-Romanian elite in the Bulgar-Romanian empire; and since he believed that there had been indigenous Slavs in Transylvania, he conveniently identified their masters with the Volohs who, according to Niestor, had ruled over Slavs and been expelled by the Hungarians.

Anonymus referred to the Blaks as soldiers in Glad's domain, which lay between the Danube, Tisza, and Maros rivers. Therefore, in his view, the Blaks were not oppressed commoners but rather the ruling elite or at least armed 'freemen'. There has been some speculation that Anonymus' Blaks were the Turkic people who are mentioned in medieval sources as bearing the same name and living east of the Carpathians, but this hypothesis does not bear the test of scholarly scrutiny. Judging from his account of Glad, Anonymus could only have been referring to the Vlach-Romanian warriors of the Bulgar-Romanian empire, who were assisted by the Cumanians. This would have been consistent with his belief that the Hungarians had driven out of the Carpathian Basin the Slavs' former masters, and that, in his day, the latter could only be found along or beyond Hungary's frontiers. In fact, this picture coincided to some extent with the situation in Anonymus' time: the Bulgar-Romanian empire, founded in 1185, had a common border with Hungary along the upper reaches of the Lower Danube, and reliable {1-342.} sources indicate that there were Vlach-Romanians living in the Southern Carpathians.

As noted, Anonymous drew on Niestor to conclude that Gelou's people were a mixture of Slavs and Blaks (Blasii, Blaci). In Anonymus' account, there are Slavs in almost all regions of the Carpathian Basin, but they are always depicted as being the subjects of another people: Salán the Bulgar settled Slavs between the Danube and the Tisza, the Czech Prince imposed his rule over the Slavs of Nyitra, the Slavs and Pannons of Transdanubia were ruled by the 'Romans', i.e. by the Germanic Roman empire, and the Transylvanian Slavs were ruled by a Blak. The masters were expelled by the Hungarians, the Slav commoners stayed put. When Anonymus wrote his 11th chapter, he apparently knew nothing about the inhabitants and rulers of Transylvania, and he was directly inspired by Niestor's chronicle to apply the standard formula to that region. He entertained two notions regarding the Romanians. The first, that the Bulgaro-Romanian empire included Vlach-Romanians, was accurate; the second, that they were one and the same as Niestor's Volohs (i.e, the Franks of Transdanubia), was patently false.

His confusion is underscored by his inconsistent spelling. In chapter 9, he assigns to the Balkan Romanians the name 'Blach', which has a Greek tonality; this name was also used by literate Byzantines and at the papal chancellery (e.g. Rex Bulgarorum et Blachorum). However, in chapters 24–26, which deal with Transylvania, he adopts two further spellings: he refers to Gelou as a Blacus, dux Blacorum, and to Gelou's people as Blasii et Sclavi. The name 'blacus' has a French ring, and, in fact, on their way across the Balkans, French crusaders had encountered the Romanians. The latter's Greco-Slavic name was spelt 'Blach' and pronounced 'Vlach', but the crusaders pronounced it and spelt it 'Blak'. This French variant was subsequently borrowed by the Hungarian chancellery and declined as in Latin: blacus, blacci, {1-343.} blacorum. The first trace in Hungarian sources of this ethnic designation is the phrase, terra [...] exempta de Blaccis, in a court document dating from 1223. The forest of the Blaks and Pechenegs (silva Blacorum et Bissenorum) is mentioned in a royal document (the Andreanum, see below) drafted in 1224 but known only from a transcription made in 1317. Around 1231, German knights at the papal court forged a Hungarian royal document (purportedly dating from 1222) in which there is reference to the terra Blacorum; the more Byzantine-style terra Blachorum figures in this document's papal endorsement. Only the French-style 'Blak' figures in Hungarian documents until 1247, when the Hungarian vernacular term Oláh first appears; it was derived — probably via the variant Volah — from the Greco-Slavic Vlach. The plural of the word Oláh, Vlasi (= Olasz, which means 'Italian' in Hungarian) had been used earlier in the vernacular to refer to neo-Latin peoples — but not to the Romanians. However, after 1247, the Hungarian chancellery would only use the terms Olacus and Olachus, which were Latinized versions of the vernacular Oláh.

It is likely that Anonymus was aware of the Hungarian chancellery's name for the people that he had called the Blaks of Transylvania, for from chapter 24 onwards he employs the French spelling. On the other hand, in chapters 9 and 25, he also uses the spelling Blachi and Blasii, which indicates that he was familiar with the pronunciation of the Greco-Slavic Vlach and of the Slavic plural Vlasi; it was thus in imitation of Niestor that he located the Vlach-Romanians in Transylvania. In light of the above, the thrust of Anonymus' account is not that northern Transylvania was inhabited in his day by Vlacho-Romanians, but the very opposite: that they had been driven out of the region, or, more precisely, that they did not live there.

Bravo Dracula!..Menumorut ,Glad ,Ahtum, Gelu.

Bravo and cumans lived in Transylvania from 9th c.!

LoL my friend u should learn a little history!

Documents as in what?

There are plenty of inscriptions in Latin and "vulgata" (Latin spoken by the lower classes) on objects and tombstones after the withdrawal of the Roman legions in 273 AD.

Yep! Does it look strange to you? It should if you have little knowledge about the history of the area

The Romanians were Christian Orthodox. The seat of the Orthodox church was in Constantinople. Between Constantinople (where Greek language was used) and Romania there were the 2 Slav Orthodox empires of the Serbs and of the Bulgarians. Since the closest Orthodox powers were Slavic the bishops were initially Slavs and the service language changed from Latin to Old Slavonic. Same thing happened with the official documents. Even the letter from 1521 is written in Romanian language but with Cyrillic letters.

hmmm, yes so daco-romans latinized christians people used latin language from 2th c.
they made some inscription object, tombstone but newer wrote any documents...? And later they forget the latin alfabet and use cirill? How is it possible do u know when was found the ortodox church???????? Whats happen to this point? When was built the first vlach/romanian church in wallachia? 13th c.!!! thats all!
tese facts deny your theory!

Huh?!

That map presents the migration of the Carpi, a tribe of the Free Dacians.

yeah, check the map, free dacians tribe from 5th c. ? Ok! no comment...
and albanians came from dacia! lol

Really? 'Cause I thought Romanians know they are the descendents of the Romanized Dacians

they just believe but its a fiction...

Err, nope! The name Romanians was [u]always used by the Romanians themselves. Actually the self-designation was and still is Romani (=Romans, in Latin language) The foreigners called them Vlachs/Wallachians/Olah/Vlasi etc.

show me a romanian document where they called themself like romanians before 19th c.

So the Vlach don't "come from south Balkan" because they never left South Balkan to begin with They stayed there and are today known as Aromanians, Istroromanians and Meglenoromanians and speak languages which are to Romanian like Portuguese is to Spanish or Italian is to French.

the first vlach mention created in 976 Byzance. "They are sepherd in mountains of south balkans. Recruite to Byzance army."

Later bolgar & vlach founded the 2nd Bolgarian empire. How is it possible? Only one way the vlach moved to north! The first hungarian written mention about vlach 1210. Before no any!

Kind of difficult to have documents in the absence of an independent state, don't you think?

i dont think so, i can explain u many examples when a non independent state made many documents!
but daco-romans didnt make anything from 2th c. to maybe 13-14th c. ! its impossible!

However you have inscriptions on tombstones and various objects because one can write those in ones own language no matter if ones overlord is Goth, Hun, Avar or Slav.

those tombsoten was made by romans in 2th c.! not by daco-romans!

Would you be so kind as to mention those Byzantine sources?

the first written mention about vlach from 976 which show us, vlach lived in south balkan!
and no any from daco-romans or vlach in transylvania or wallachia or moldavia!

if vlach lived in wallachia from 2th c why nobody call it like wallachia? only from 13th c. ??

And of course there's Priscus (Eastern Roman Empire's envoy to Attila) account describing how the Latin-speaking populations from South of the Danube voluntarily crossed into the Hun territory in order to avoid taxation.

And? it was part of roman empire! Priscus also wrote about nomadic roxolans and jakuzas who lived near to Olt river... And what a surprise Priscus hadnt any mention about daco-romans or vlach! why? because they didnt live there!

The Byzantine chronicles also document a migration from Romania into the Balkans (Keukamenos' "Strategikon", written in the 11th century).

show me!

So come again, which Byzantine chronicles document a migration of the Romanians from the Balkans to nowadays Romania?

first mention 976 vlach lived in south balkan
after bolgar-vlach founded the 2nd bolgar empire
after wallachia founded

its show the way was south to north! if u are right it should be different!

wallachia founded
bolgar-vlach 2nd bolgar empire
vlahc lived also in south balkan!

realy simple!

Hungarian revisionism is just an ugly form of neo-Nazism.

i discuss about daco-roman theory and transylvania... its history!

how is it belongs to hungarian revisionism and neo-nazism?

And you are completely right about the neo-nazi character of the movement. Just look at Cimbye's video a page back, the one with the soccer hooligans chanting in Hungarian and doing the nazi salute. The biggest problem is that this sort of mentality permeates everywhere in Hungarian media. Images of "Romania Mare" are few in Romania, and most of them only belong to a niche group, even if most Romanians still would like to be united with their brothers over the Prut. In Hungary however, the image of "Great Hungary" is everywhere.

funny to read from someone who has a signature: Bessarabia is Romania!
no comment!

As for snipa's nationalist dick-waving:
Hungarian state longevity: 1000-1526 (526 years) [after which it was annexed by the Habsburg Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Transylvania broke off as its own country].
Romanian state longevity: 1330-present day (678+ years) [we have literally never been annexed despite being surrounded by 3 empires]
Even if we add in the time after 1867 Romania still beats out Hungary by more than a decade.
Choke on that!

what is my nationalist dick-waving? i discuss about history! i think nationalist dick-waving mean to make fictions and create roman ancestors!

btw seems to me u should learn a little history!
1526 was battle of mohacs!
1541 capture of buda
1571 when formaly hungarian kingdom separated 2 country, principality of Transylvania led by hungarian ruler and Kingdom of Hungary which was ruled by habsburg! (the hungarian king resign his right for kingdom of hungary)

and romania wasnt an exist country to 19th c.!
there wasnt at least 20 years when any of vlach principality was independ! Those were always a vassal of other! And both were created by support of Hungarian kingdom. Seems to me romanized-romanians couldnt make their own state they needed help by others! lol

P.S. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why every medieval author states that Romanians were in Transylvania before the Hungarians. Please, enlighten me...

every romanians medieval author ... its doesnt matter! just fictions!

EDIT: Pallantides, many gypsies in Transylvania speak Hungarian and declare themselves as Hungarians. Therefore, the vampires cannot count on their full support in the even of war. Thankfully, Count Chocula has stated that he fully backs Romania's territorial integrity.

hungarians used "Olah" for gipsies and vlachs from medieval ages! realy interesting!

[Dracula]

Your first post is so confusing and badly writtten in english that I hardly understand it.
Just to say few things:
1.The Byzantine Empire thought of its citizens as "romans" and the byzantine authors often name its state as "Romania". Even the turks who came after the 15th century referred to all the Balkans as "Romania"("Rumelli" in turkish). The distinction between the different ethnical groups was made not quite often so in many cases by byzantines you can understand romanians as well. And today it is hardly possible to say who of them were greeks and who others especially for the so mixed regions north of the Hemus mountain. This means that a source mentioning byzantine rule may actually referr to a vlach one.
That is why in the chronicle Menumorit accepts the sovereignity of Leo VI from Constantinople..and the vlachs weren't so eager to create an own state...cause for them the roman/byzantine empire was their place,Romania and they had its head in Constantinople. And if according to the doctrine of the Empire it is a father of all christian states and lesser kingdoms, how much more it is for these of roman origin. I believe even Constantinople crowned the first hungarian king as an expression of the supreme sovereignity of the Empire over all those places.

2. The Bulgarian tzardom was also a mixed state in many aspects repeating the situation in the Byzantine Empire. It had vlachs,slavs and greeks within,all of them considered "bulgarians" in their chronicles. The bulgarian/slav element came in first place quite late. A citizen/ruler of Bulgaria may have been vlach too - like the tzars Assen and Peter in 1185.
That is how I don't think one can say the period before XIIIc lacks mentioning of vlachs for these regions.

3.If you acknowledge that the hungarians defeated the leaders of vlachs and slavs in Transylvania in XIIIc, I don't understand what do you actually argue ?!

[snipa]

Your first post is so confusing and badly writtten in english that I hardly understand it.

yeah sorry for me, my english is a big ! so explain me which one u not understand and i try to rewrite again...

Just to say few things:
1.The Byzantine Empire thought of its citizens as "romans" and the byzantine authors often name its state as "Romania". Even the turks who came after the 15th century referred to all the Balkans as "Romania"("Rumelli" in turkish). The distinction between the different ethnical groups was made not quite often so in many cases by byzantines you can understand romanians as well. And today it is hardly possible to say who of them were greeks and who others especially for the so mixed regions north of the Hemus mountain. This means that a source mentioning byzantine rule may actually referr to a vlach one.
That is why in the chronicle Menumorit accepts the sovereignity of Leo VI from Constantinople..and the vlachs weren't so eager to create an own state...cause for them the roman/byzantine empire was their place,Romania and they had its head in Constantinople. And if according to the doctrine of the Empire it is a father of all christian states and lesser kingdoms, how much more it is for these of roman origin. I believe even Constantinople crowned the first hungarian king as an expression of the supreme sovereignity of the Empire over all those places.

whats prove that east-romans called their land like romania? is it prove the daco-roman theory?

Vlach newer called their land as romania before 19th c.

2. The Bulgarian tzardom was also a mixed state in many aspects repeating the situation in the Byzantine Empire. It had vlachs,slavs and greeks within,all of them considered "bulgarians" in their chronicles. The bulgarian/slav element came in first place quite late. A citizen/ruler of Bulgaria may have been vlach too - like the tzars Assen and Peter in 1185.
That is how I don't think one can say the period before XIIIc lacks mentioning of vlachs for these regions.

the problem is there arent daco-romans or vlach mentions from dacia before 13th c.!

or u have any?

but we have informations about vlach from south-balkan region and from bolgaria!

3.If you acknowledge that the hungarians defeated the leaders of vlachs and slavs in Transylvania in XIIIc, I don't understand what do you actually argue ?!

1. not vlach (romanians try to transfer the Blacii to vlach)
2. this informations was created in 13th c. not in 9-10th c.
3. the 10th c. byzance sources show us that the hungarian's enemies were slavs/moravs(in hungarian marót), bolgars, franks... no any from vlachs or daco-romans
4. before hungarrians came to carpatian base they lived in current moldavia and wallachia (Etelköz) and what a surprise no any mentions about hungarians vs vlach/daco-romans whoever there!
5. hungarians medieval authors used Anonymous GH to understand the noble system in hungarian kingdom of 13th c.


seems to me daco-romans/vlach/whoever is a hideing nation (i try to believe that they were hideing in a deep forest or in a deep cave when gepidas, gots, huns, roxolans, bolgars, avars, magyars, cumans etc... arrived to dacia cause no informations about daco-romans fought for their land!! )...

[tabacila]

As for snipa's nationalist dick-waving:
Hungarian state longevity: 1000-1526 (526 years) [after which it was annexed by the Habsburg Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Transylvania broke off as its own country].
Romanian state longevity: 1330-present day (678+ years) [we have literally never been annexed despite being surrounded by 3 empires]
Even if we add in the time after 1867 Romania still beats out Hungary by more than a decade.
Choke on that!

P.S. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why every medieval author states that Romanians were in Transylvania before the Hungarians. Please, enlighten me...

EDIT: Pallantides, many gypsies in Transylvania speak Hungarian and declare themselves as Hungarians. Therefore, the vampires cannot count on their full support in the even of war. Thankfully, Count Chocula has stated that he fully backs Romania's territorial integrity.

I love it when Romano-Dacis brightens my day like this

[Dromikaites]

so now Anonymous wrote romanians and not vlach? He newer wrote about vlach and romanians!!!! newer!

As I was recomending to you before, read first and comment only after reading

btw dont forget Anonymous wrote his GH in 13th c.! The only genuine sources from hungarians arrive was created in Byzance! And what a surprise there is no vlach, romanian mention etc.... Check if u want...

Look, it's not only Gesta Hungarorum which places the Romanians in Transylvania. It's also the archaeological findings of the fortified towns of Dabaca, the capitol of Gelu's Ducy and Bihara (still inhabited today) as the capitol of Menumorut's Duchy.

And then you have the Kepes Chronicle. So you have not only the archaeological evidence but also the two oldest surviving Hungarian chronicles which place the Romanians in Transylvania before the arival of the Hungarians.

I understand you hate the outcome of WW1 but going to dismiss you own chronicles is a bit rich, don't you think?

Bravo and cumans lived in Transylvania from 9th c.!

As much as the Scythians were defeated by Alexios I Comenus or the Gauls invaded Greece and Anatolia.

A typical mistake made time and again by other authors of chronicles. The thing is in the case of Transylvania you have the chronicles and the archaeological evidence to back them up.

LoL my friend u should learn a little history!

Best example is personal example

hmmm, yes so daco-romans latinized christians people used latin language from 2th c.
they made some inscription object, tombstone but newer wrote any documents...?

Any documents as in what?

Do you know how the Roman and Greek authors' works survived to our times? They were copied by scribes repeatedly because the technologies of that time didn't ensure the survivability of the original documents. And the copies were stored in libraries or archives. Sometimes the documents were translated back into Greek or Latin from Arabic, as the Europeans had lost the copies forever during the Dark Ages.

So you want the stateless Daco-Romans to copy what type of works and store them into what kind of libraries and archives? Get real!

And later they forget the latin alfabet and use cirill?

The alphabet is a communication tool. Writing is taught in schools. If the only communication is in Old Slavonic (the language of the church and of the administration) who would teach Latin grammar and for what purpose?

How is it possible do u know when was found the ortodox church????????

Huh?! Starting from the 2nd century you have Christian tombstones and churches in various caves (it makes sense since the religion is still illegal). In the 4th century, after the withdrawal of the Roman legions the Christians can practice freely their religion. So they go in broad daylight to a bronze craftsman and order a 2kg donarium to be offered to the church.

Whats happen to this point? When was built the first vlach/romanian church in wallachia? 13th c.!!! thats all!

The 13th century church is the oldest surviving building. Before that you have churches in the caves. And that donarium had to be placed in a 4th century "church" 'cause that's where the donariums are kept. Those early buildings have simply not survived the repeated waves of migrations which crossed the region (Goths, Huns, Avars, Gepides, Longobards, Cumans, Slavs, Mongols, etc).

tese facts deny your theory!

How so? Please use articulate phrases to disprove whatever theory you would like to disprove

yeah, check the map, free dacians tribe from 5th c. ? Ok! no comment...
and albanians came from dacia! lol

That map reflects a theory about the origins of the Albanians which attempts to link the Albanians to the free Dacian tribe called Carpi. The Carpi were still around in the 4th century (Constantine I fought them). So even though that theory about the Dacian origins of the Albanians is not mainstream, having the descendants of the Carpi 100 years after Constantine had defeated and resettled them is not quite a big stretch.

Why do you insist linking it to Transylvania is beyond my ability to understand your logic.

they just believe but its a fiction...

Good, I'm waiting for your arguments against the combined weight of documentary and archaeological evidence

show me a romanian document where they called themself like romanians before 19th c.

That's easy. Make your pick:

1. the Romanian chronicles of the 16th century or

2. the much older (13th century onwards) Old Slavonic administrative documents or property titles which list villages of "Romani" (at that time "Romans" having the unsurprising meaning of "serfs" since they were the native population enslaved by the foreign, non-Roman[ian] overlords).

Or you can pick both sources

Starting with the 16th century the Romanian elites start to use the Romanian language in writing. They had traveled to the Western universities and had discovered on that occasion the language they spoke was similar to Italian and French.

So instead of calling just the serfs Romani (=Romans in the Latin language) the elites are increasingly proud of their Roman heritage. They drop Old Slavonic and replace it with Romanian first in the chronicles and then in the official documents of the kings' chancelleries.

the first vlach mention created in 976 Byzance. "They are sepherd in mountains of south balkans. Recruite to Byzance army."

Yes and?

Later bolgar & vlach founded the 2nd Bolgarian empire. How is it possible? Only one way the vlach moved to north! The first hungarian written mention about vlach 1210. Before no any!

Don't play dumb! Vlach had multiple meanings. The foreigners were using the term both for the Romanized population in the Balkans and for the guys the Hungarians had to defeat in order to conquer Transylvania. In other words your "Vlachs" were living both South and North of the Danube.

i dont think so, i can explain u many examples when a non independent state made many documents!

Go ahead! But guess what? You would find out that those documents were kept in libraries or archives, either state ones or monastery ones.

but daco-romans didnt make anything from 2th c. to maybe 13-14th c. ! its impossible!

Let's reverse the issue in order to expose its "brilliancy": do you know of any "Vlach" documents in a Romance language prior to the 10th century?

How come the Vlachs from the Balkans never wrote any document before the 10th century?

Let me give you another example: the earliest document in the Basque language is from 1537. The Basques are one of the oldest nations in Europe - how come they haven't written anything in their language prior to the 16th century?

Most likely the Vlachs of the Balkans, the Daco-Romans and the Basques have written letters and maybe also commercial papers before the first surviving documents we have. But since those documents had limited lifespan, since nobody thought them important enough to be copied repeatedly and stored away none of them survived.

Claiming the Daco-Romans didn't exist in Transylvania after the Roman legions withdrew in spite of several contemporary accounts (listed by Romano-Dacis on previous occasions), in spite of the two oldest Hungarian chronicles and in spite of the archaeological evidence is like claiming the Basques popped up from nowhere in the 16th century.

Ingenious but stupid argument

those tombsoten was made by romans in 2th c.! not by daco-romans!

Oh really? There are Christian tombstones and Christian artifacts inscribed in Latin from the 3rd century, from the 4th century, etc.

the first written mention about vlach from 976 which show us, vlach lived in south balkan!

Yes, a romance speaking population called the Vlachs by non-Romance speaking peoples lived in the Balkans. Another one lived in Transylvania and fought the Hungarians.

and no any from daco-romans or vlach in transylvania or wallachia or moldavia!

Oh, really? Did you bother to look at what Romano-Dacis posted on page 2?

if vlach lived in wallachia from 2th c why nobody call it like wallachia? only from 13th c. ??

France is called like that because the ruling class were Franks (Germanic). Does it mean the Gallo-Romans were non-existent? Before the 13th century the rulers of the duchies there were Avars, Slavs, Bulgars (Turkic ones, not the Slavs), Mongols, etc.

And? it was part of roman empire! Priscus also wrote about nomadic roxolans and jakuzas who lived near to Olt river... And what a surprise Priscus hadnt any mention about daco-romans or vlach! why? because they didnt live there!

Tempting fate again, aren't we?

Priscus specifically mentions former Roman subjects who had escaped taxes by emigrating to the Hun empire. He is relevant because it helps understanding how the Latin language survived and eventually evolved into Romanian in spite of all the migrations that crossed that territory.

show me!

Gladly! Look up page 281 of the book "Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250" on Google Books.

You'll see there that according to Kekaumenos the Vlachs are the descendants of the Dacians and of the Bessi (another Thracian tribe) and moved from the areas of the Danube and Sava rivers down to Thessaly.

Kekaumenos explains this migration from the north to the south has happened because the "Romans" (= Byzantines) had defeated them. However since a Byzantine attack would have been from the South towards the North the only plausible explanation is the Vlachs Kekaumenos mentions crossed the Danube into the Byzantine territory under the pressure of other invaders who had pushed them to leave what is now Romania and enter the Byzantine territory, they attacked the Byzantines and after being defeated were resettled into Thessaly.

first mention 976 vlach lived in south balkan
after bolgar-vlach founded the 2nd bolgar empire
after wallachia founded

Is it that difficult for you to grasp the concept there were many different populations labeled as "Vlachs"?

its show the way was south to north! if u are right it should be different!

Yep, and it is. See the part about Kekaumenos' "Strategikon".

funny to read from someone who has a signature: Bessarabia is Romania!
no comment!

Do you have an alternative opinion about Bessarabia? If so, please share.

what is my nationalist dick-waving? i discuss about history! i think nationalist dick-waving mean to make fictions and create roman ancestors!

He, he, I'm sure you have means to disprove both the archaeological evidence and the medieval chronicles, including the Hungarian ones

btw seems to me u should learn a little history!
1526 was battle of mohacs!
1541 capture of buda
1571 when formaly hungarian kingdom separated 2 country, principality of Transylvania led by hungarian ruler and Kingdom of Hungary which was ruled by habsburg! (the hungarian king resign his right for kingdom of hungary)

How exactly does that make his chronology wrong? Hungary ceased to exist in either 1526 when the last king who actually ruled died while running away from the battlefield or in 1571 when a guy who never reigned as king of Hungary ceded his right to the HRE emperor.

Seems to me romanized-romanians couldnt make their own state they needed help by others! lol

Correct me if I'm wrong but neither Wallachia nor Moldova were ever ruled by a Turkish pasha. Hungary was. And the Ottoman pasha ruled directly from Budapest.

The same Wallachia and Moldova kicked Hungarian butt time and again. Then in 1919 a certain army marched through the streets of Budapest

every romanians medieval author ... its doesnt matter! just fictions!

So both "Gesta Hungarorum" and the Kepes Kronika (The Illuminated Chronicle) were written by Romanians? Wow!

hungarians used "Olah" for gipsies and vlachs from medieval ages! realy interesting!

Good, you're showing your true colors! I was really wondering when you would get to "Romanians = Gypsies" line of arguments

[Cimbye]

Think about that

[Cimbye]

I have to quote myself

QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONTINUOUS HABITATION SINCE DACIAN TIMES OF THE WALLACHIANS/RUMANIANS IN WHAT IS NOW CALLED TRANSYLVANIA




1. Was there any historical, archaeological or other discovery made in 1920 as a result of which a large number of encyclopedias should have felt compelled to write Transylvania's history in the spirit of the Daco-Roman theory which, among other things, claims continuous habitation since Dacian times of the Wallachians/Rumanians in what is now called Transylvania?
2. Assuming the continuous habitation of the Wallachians/Rumanians on the soil of what is now called Transylvania after the withdrawal from there of the roman colonists and legions by approximately 270 A.D. and considering that the peoples following the Romans there, namely the Goths, Huns, Gepids, Avars and Bulgars were swept away by the Völkerwanderung (mass migration of peoples), while according to the proponents of the Daco-roman theory the ,,Daco-roman,, ancestors of the Wallachians/Rumanians survived there in mountain caves, one would like to know in exactly which caves did they survive unnoticed during those war-filled centuries? And where are the pertinent archaeological proofs: sleeping cubicles, whole or broken cooking utensils and other household articles attesting to the permanent living of masses of ,,Daco-Romans,, in such caves?

3. Because the proponents of the Daco-Roman theory claim that the Wallachians/Rumanians became Christian on the soil of what is now called Transylvania in the 4th or 5th century, one is curious to learn about any creation of the ,,Daco-roman,, ancestors of the Wallachians/Rumanians, which should have been preserved in well-hidden caves:

(a) religious creations dating from the time that passed between approx. 270 A.D. and the acceptance of Christianity by the ,,Daco-roman,, ancestors of the Wallachians/Rumanians;

(b) religious creations between the time of acceptance of Christianity by the same people and their first mention in documents of the Hungarian Kingdom in the early 13th century.

One is especially interested in evidence of a reasonable quantity of inscriptions in either the Dacian or the Latin language regarding the first period, and in Latin or Neo-Latin regarding the second, on the walls of cave churches, on gravestones or other cultic objects, for such inscriptions bearing witness to Roman civilization are not lacking in numerous other areas once held by the Romans.

4. How is it explained that no records exist or are referred to either in Rome or in Byzantium about:

(a) the acceptance of Christianity by the ,,Daco-roman,, population which is claimed to have stayed behind after the evacuation of Provincia Dacia around 270 A.D.
(b) episcopal visitations carried out for many centuries to that population;

(c) the discovery of a Latin speaking population in erstwhile Provincia Dacia? It stands to reason that such a discovery should have caused quite a sensation, and exactly an area inhabited by such a population could have been turned into a new center for Christian mission, where at least one bishopric and several parishes as well as monasteries should have been established.

5. Ever since history has records about the ancestors of the Rumanians, they figured as adherents of the Eastern Church of Slav Rites rits:, and in 1698 only one part of the Wallachians/Rumanians living in Transylvania entered into union with Rome.

In 895 A.D. the area now called Transylvania became a part of the new realm of the Hungarians, and in 1003 or 1004 the Hungarian king, (Saint) Stephen I. began to organize the area in question called in Old Hungarian Erdö Elve, later in a contracted form Erdel or Erdély 'the land beyond the forest', as seen from the Great Hungarian Plain - as an integral part of his kingdom within the ecclesiastical framework of the Roman Church; if not under him, then at least since the schism of 1054, the adherents of the Eastern Church of Slav Rites rits: were regarded in the Hungarian Kingdom as heretics, and such were not allowed to stay or settle there. In view of this, how did the claimed ,,Daco-roman,, ancestors of the Wallachians/Rumanians not come into conflict with Endre I. (1046-1060) and his successors, if the claimed ,,Daco-roman,, ancestors lived in the Hungarian Kingdom? And if it is claimed that they had been converted to the Eastern Church of Slav Rites rits: as subjects of the Hungarian Kingdom, one must ask:

(a) when did they convert,

(b) why did they convert,

(c) with whose permission did they convert?

6. How is it explained that in the language of the claimed ,,Daco-roman,, ancestors of the Wallachians/Rumanians the name given to the area in question by the Dacians (if they called it by any name) or the Romans, who called it Provincia Dacia, did not survive? Why was it necessary for the Wallachian ancestors of the Rumanians to borrow Old Hungarian ERDEL which, with some phonetic distortion, the Rumanians still write and pronounce as ARDEAL?

7. If on the soil of Britain after some 400 years of roman rule the Latin language failed to continue its existence, how could it have survived in abandoned Provincia Dacia after a mere 165 years of roman rule? Besides, most of the settlers and soldiers had not hailed from Italy, thus their language was in most cases not Latin.

8. According to the analysis by the 19th century Rumanian linguist Alexandre de Cihac (in Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue roumaine), the vocabulary of the Rumanian language then showed the following break-down: 45.7% words Slav origin, 31.5% words of Latin origin, 8.4% words of Turkish origin, 7% words of Greek origin, 6% words of Hungarian origin, 0.6% words of Albanian origin (plus some unidentified residue with no Dacian word in it). Now linguistics teaches us that after a language change by a people a considerable number of words and some grammatical features are retained as a substratum remaining from the abandoned language. Where are such substratum remnants of the Dacian language in Rumanian?

9. History and archaeology attest clearly that after the withdrawal of the settlers and soldiers from Provincia Dacia, to an area south of the Danube (roughly the area of later Bulgaria), the culturally advanced Goths and Gepids, (of Germanic languages), lived for centuries in the territory abandoned by the Romans. As, according to the testimony of de Cihac, the Wallachians/Rumanians were not at all averse to borrowing from the languages of their neighbours, the question arises: why did they not borrow even a single word from the culturally advanced Goths and Gepids whose neighbours, according to the Daco-Roman hypothesis, they inevitably had to be on the soil of former Provincia Dacia?

10. As objective historiography does not say that the Albanians had migrated to the area of traditional Albania from what is now called Transylvania, how is it explained that many conspicuously common features exist between Albanian and Rumanian? Is it by some chance that the migration of the Wallachians/Rumanians towards Transylvania began right in the vicinity of Albania? It is known that as early as the 10th century A.D. extensive Wallachian settlements existed in the general vicinity of later Albania. Arumunian and Meglenetic ,,Rumanians,, still live there.

11. After his resounding victory over the Bulgars and their Wallachian allies in 1018, the Byzantine Emperor Basilios placed (in 1020) the roaming Vlachos, as the Byzantines called the Wallachian ancestors, under the ecclesiastical rule of the archbishopric of Ochrida, just south-east of Albania. Why did the Wallachians/Rumanians in Transylvania belong to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the archbishopric of Ochrida as late as 1715, when Orthodox bishoprics of Slav Rites existed closer to them?

12. Why was the language of the liturgy of the Wallachians/Rumanians on the soil of what is now called Transylvania neither Latin, nor Wallachian/Rumanian, but Slav even in the second half of the 19th century, and why were so many members of the clergy of the Wallachians/Rumanians over the centuries of Serbian or Bulgarian origin?

13. How it is explained that among the claimed descendants of Dacians and Romans not even the priests used Latin letters, but Cyrillic, even in the 19th century? If the claimed ,,Daco-Roman,, ancestors of the Wallachians/Rumanians exchanged their expected Latin script for Cyrillic, which could not take place prior to the middle of the 9th century, then why and when did they do it in the Hungarian Kingdom where no other group of people used Cyrillic until Serbian and Wallachian refugees from the Turks requested entry?

14. The Regestrum Varadiense contains the court records of ordeals held between 1205 and 1238 within the jurisdiction of the bishopric of Várad covering eastern Hungary, including Transylvania. From those records, approx. 600 place-names and approx. 2500 personal names have been listed. Neither list contains names rooted in the Wallachian/Rumanian language, although along with most Hungarians, Wallonians, Germans, Ruthenians and Ishmaelites are mentioned, and Wallachian/Rumanian names are not lacking in documents of the Hungarian Kingdom during later centuries. How is this explained?

15. What is the explanation for the fact that the Wallachians/Rumanians, claimed descendants of the Dacians who built fortified towns, and of the Romans who were famous far and wide for their ability to build magnificent towns, never built a single town on the soil of what is now called Transylvania? What is more, the Wallachian/Rumanian word for 'town' i.e. oras, is a borrowing of old Hungarian waras.

16. The history of settlements in Transylvania shows that of 511 villages whose names can be ascertained by the end of the 13th century, only three had names rooted in the language of the Wallachians/Rumanians. Did the ancestors of Wallachians-Rumanians begin to immigrate into Transylvania during the 13th century?

17. Why is it that in Transylvania not a single river or larger rivulet bears a name rooted in the language of the Wallachians/Rumanians?

Or you don't know the answer?

[[WOT]Mehmet]

You obviously have biased opinions. A heap of your text was complaining about Hungarian land taken...
No, I know and most people know that the Soviets did a lot of bad things. But they also did good; building things like schools, hospitals and universities.
I myself are of Ukrainian background, and I think the soviets did worse to us than the Hungarians: cosidering 4-8 million Ukrainians were murdered. Still, even though I say this, I don't go and curse Russians as a whole, they werent only Russians who tried to wipe away your history. You seem to forget many Hungarians were communist, and supported the "new era"

[Dracula]

@ Cimbye : these videos are ridiculous :

1. How in hells name can a conscious man think that - after Dacia and Transylvania were left by the roman army, automatically everything roman there seized to exist ? That nobody remained ?! That everything vanished ?

You may add that the "rule" of the posterior tribes like pechenegs was not exactly a rule. They were hauling nomad tribes that didn't settle in one place and didn't exactly have a territory. So they didn't exactly rule,they were more likely just present there. Like in RTW the barbarian hordes.

2. In the system of the medieval period, the Byzantine Empire and its dominions looked like that: On top the vasilevs ruling over semi-independent kingdoms or archontatae or vassalities,or protectorates. That is how the most devastated territories north of the Danube weren't much paid attention but were considered at times under the hat of Constantinople. This is the main reason they don't appear as separate political bodies,cause they looked like the back yard of the empire.

3. Romanian is a latin language,no doubt. Though it has slavic influences they are not that much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages
Btw I don't know a language in the world that is not influenced by others,incl classical latin who took many things from etruscan.To say vlach is non latin language is a cultural crime.

4. Romanian lands used latin alphabet once,yes. But who -the upper class only cause in these times most of the people were illiterate. Christianity spread north of the Danube mainly through the preach of Constantinople,and at the time the barbarian invasions seized,Constantinople had already developed cyrilic alphabet for the non greeks. That is how the mass population had been educated in the cyrillic alphabet cause the orthodox Church was the first to spread the level of literacy wider among the masses. That is how it eventually replaced latin. There is no mystery in that.

5.These videos were mistaken in every sentence,but most striking was the lack of evidence for its hypothesis. I saw no proof vlach and albanian have common routes nor that all vlachs lived once in Illyria. One may ask if it is so why are the other illyrians,the albanians not latinized to this day ?!

7. The archbishopry of Ohrid in Macedonia was not a vlach one when the byzantines appointed archbishops,but bulgarian. And Macedonia(ex Yougoslav) was considered by the greeks of the time a core of the tzardom of Bulgaria.

[snipa]

How is it possible to do what?

Documents means things written on paper or similar materials. In order for them to be preserved you need somebody to copy them and to store them in a library. Do you know how the Roman documents survived to this day? Only as copies.

We have on the other hand inscriptions in Latin on objects ranging from small things as rings to large things as tombstones.

Tough luck, there was nobody to copy them and to store them in libraries.

yes of course so no any written documents (copies) whioch was created by latinized daco-romans! thats all!
which mean there arent any written mention from daco-romans!

just dont forget this missing time is about 1000 years!! 1000! and u havent any! only some roman objects what romanians historicals says its created by daco-romans after 3th c.!

Besides given who ruled over those territories after 273 AD it's highly likely those documents would have been private letters or business letters. Not exactly the type of stuff one would bother to copy and store in a library

why not? we knows many business or private letter which was creted by romans in roman empire!

You have to satisfy your thirst of knowledge with the inscriptions in Latin from Dacia centuries after the army's withdrawal. If people still used Latin in writing it is quite likely they were also speaking it

and those tombs were created by romans in 3th c...

give me a roman records about daco-romans fought against goths or gepidas or huns etc...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The decade of the 220s were the last peaceful period in Dacia's history. In 231, when Emperor Alexander Severus's headed off with units of the Illyrian army for an ultimately unsuccessful Persian campaign, the Goths' southeasterly migration came to a stop. Earlier, the Goths had wrought havoc among the peoples who lived on the perimeter of the Roman empire in the Carpathian Basin. Now, they settled down in southern Ukraine and along the shores of the Black Sea. A short period of peace followed as the Goths gathered their strength. Beginning in the mid-230s, they renewed their attacks, and over several decades they caused unprecedented destruction on the Balkan peninsula and in Dacia. Together with their allies, the Goths confronted the empire and, {1-117.} with land and sea forces, besieged the provinces in the Balkans and Asia Minor. Concurrently, in the Near East, the Persian wars went on with occasional pauses; gaining ground as they gained strength, the Persian armies even managed to capture Emperor Valerian (258–260). In the Rhineland, too, the Romans faced a critical situation due to attacks by the Alemanni, Jutes, and Franks. The empire was ill-prepared to defend its borders from multiple, widely dispersed attacks. Constant warfare ultimately led to domestic anarchy.

The war must have reached Dacia during the reign of Emperor Maximinus (235–238), for the latter assumed the title of Dacicus Maximus in 236 to celebrate a victory. The attacks came mainly from free Dacians and Carpi, who were being pushed westwards by the Goths. Fighting continued under Gordianus III (238–244), when the Carpi attacked the Limes Transalutanus. The relentless progress of the war is indicated by the many treasures buried during these two emperor's reigns, never to be retrieved by their owners. In gratitude for Gordianus' defensive efforts, Dacia's provincial council raised an epigraph honouring the Emperor.[58] In 245–247, the Limes Transalutanus gave way under the fierce attacks of the Carpi. Pannonian troops were marshalled to Dacia to withhold the Carpi,
and Emperor Philippus travelled to the battlefront; in 247, he took the title of Carpicus Maximus. Despite momentary successes, the Romans had to abandon the Limes Transalutanus. There is no archaeological evidence to indicate the date, but it must have happened by 248, when, judging from stone fortifications built around Romula by legion detachments from Moesia Superior and Germania Romula, the Olt limes had become the front line.[59]

In 246–47, after the mints in Moesia were closed, a new mint was established at Viminacium to facilitate the payment of soldiers in the lower Danubian region. This mint helped to supply Dacia's needs for some eleven years, and the province was also granted the right to strike coins.

{1-118.} There was no letup in the fighting. An epigraph in Apulum hails Traianus Decius (249–251) as restitutor Daciarum, the 'restorer of Dacia', and a bronze statue of the Emperor was erected at Sarmizegethusa. In 250, he, too, assumed the title of Dacicus Maximus, presumably because of his military successes. After occupying a southeastern strip of the province along the Limes Transalutanus, the enemy made further gains during — or shortly after — the reign of Philippus. Already greatly reduced, the circulation of coins appears to have ceased in the camps of eastern Transylvania by the middle of the 3rd century, probably indicating that the camps had been abandoned. The Tabula Peutingeriana, a map drawn in the same period, shows neither the Limes Transalutanus nor the Roman roads of eastern Transylvania, and thus also points to the evacuation of the northeastern territories. As the Carpi advance advanced, Dacia's inhabitants began to seek refuge south of the Danube, in Moesia; during Philippus' reign, one of the no doubt many who fled Dacia was the mother of Galerius, who later became emperor.[60]

Sources say little about the attacks on Dacia, for that much-tried province had already lost much of its military significance, and the crucial battles were being fought to the south, in the Balkans. A wealth of concealed treasure shows the Gothic offensive against Moesia Inferior and Thrace, where they attacked relentlessly from the 230s onwards. In or around 235, the Goths and Carpi occupied Histria and sacked the Danube delta's prosperous commercial centres, which had also served as important economic links for Moesia and Dacia. Moesia came under attack in 238, and in 244 the enemy laid siege to the town of Marcianapolis, in Moesia Inferior; that battle was won by Decius, whose soldiers thereupon proclaimed him Emperor. Moesia was attacked again in 248, and, the following year, two towns on the right bank of the lower Danube, Iatrus and Novae (Svishtov), were sacked; the roads leading to Dacia now came under threat. Decius was unable to hold {1-119.} back the relentless pressure of the Goths, who defeated him at Abrittus (near the site of his victorious battle in 251); he lost his life in the battle, as did his son and thousands of his soldiers. Two years later, the Goths laid siege to Thessaloniki, while the Romans reinforced the defences of Macedonia's towns, of the pass at Thermopylae, and of Athens. The attacks by land and sea went on unceasingly for fifteen years.

Dacia itself is hardly mentioned; Emperor Gallienus took the title Dacicus Maximus in 257, presumably for resisting the Carpi. A final effort was made around this time to fortify some of the province's military camps, but it may have coincided with the beginning of military withdrawal. To enhance security, the broad portals of the camps at Énlaka, Barcarozsnyó, Sebesváralja, and Porolissum were partially or completely walled up. The erection of inscribed monuments in Dacia was essentially halted in 260, during Gallienus' reign.[61] The circulation of coins in western Dacia fell back; few coins of
this period have been found in towns and camps, except at the military headquarters in Apulum. The shortage of coins that accompanied the crisis in the middle of the 3rd century was accentuated in 257–58 by the dismantling and removal of the regional mint at Viminacium.

The thirty-year war brought military reverses on several fronts, a catastrophic economic situation, a persistent shortage of money (partly due to the vast amount of gold expended to buy peace from the Persians), and an internal power struggle. A low point was reached towards the end of the 250s, when Rome suffered devastating setbacks at the hands of the Alemani and Franks in Germania, Rhaetia, and Gaul, and of the Sarmatians and Quads in Pannonia. Spurred by these reverses, Emperor Gallienus made a determined effort to reorganize the empire. In 260, a mobile, mounted army, formed from former legion units, helped to repulse the Alemanni, who had reached Italy's borders, and the empire's defensive line on the Rhine was consolidated.

{1-120.} To improve the defences of Italia and Illyria, Gallienus established a new military headquarters at Poetovio (Ptuj, Yugoslavia), which was situated at a key road junction. Sometime in the 260s, units of Dacia's legions (the V Macedonica and the XIII Gemina), under the command of the praepositus Flavius Aper, took up permanent quarters in Poetovio. Finds of marble epigraphs and bas-reliefs bear witness that these troops reconstructed and decorated the town's third Mithras shrine. To secure Gallienus' well-being, Flavius Aper and his officers raised altars to this sun god, who was believed to have slain the primordial bull. The altars, together with the presence of the legions' headquarters, indicate that many, or all of the two legions' units were stationed in the town. Evidently, Gallienus had withdrawn his elite troops from a Dacia encircled by Barbarians. There is no evidence that all or part of the legion V Macedonica was still stationed at its former camp in Potaissa after the end of the 250s; the coin traffic at the camp ceased at this time. In contrast, coin traffic at the camp of the other legion, the XIII Gemina, continued until Aurelianus' reign. That legion's commander remained in Dacia after 260, for he erected an altar in the southern part of the province;[62] that altar, found at Mehadia, is the last relic of Dacia's Roman defenders. As the Goths encircled and then invaded Dacia,
the province lost its military importance, and Rome progressively withdrew its armies.

The reorganization of the Danubian provinces was facilitated by the fact that after their protracted offensives, the Goth armies were running out of steam. After raiding Athens, Corinth, and Sparta, they suffered a tremendous defeat in 269 at the hands of Emperor Claudius II, at Naissus (Niš, Yugoslavia). For once, the title assumed by the Emperor, Gothicus, was justified by an authentic triumph, and ever since, it has been linked to his name. The Goths' next probe, in 270, in Dobrudja, was of little consequence.

Claudius Gothicus' successor, Aurelianus, mounted a campaign against the rebellious queen of Palmyra, Zenobia, who had {1-121.} occupied Egypt, an important source of wheat for Rome. Aurelianus first cleared the rampaging Barbarians out of Illyria and Thrace, then crossed the Danube and inflicted a defeat on the Goths in their homeland; the Goths' king, Cannabaudes, fell in battle. Much to the relief of the population, the lower Danubian region could enjoy a respite from war, but the victories came too late to save Dacia. Coins minted in 270, at the beginning of Aurelianus' reign, bear the inscriptions PANNONIA and DACIA FELIX next to GENIUS ILLYRICI, testifying to Illyria's importance and to Dacia's good fortune. Although that reference may allude to the deliverance of the original Dacia founded by Trajan, it could also evoke the rescue of its population and the founding of a new Dacian province to the south of the Danube. Aurelianus, on an inspection tour of the province, had found devastation and depopulation; concluding that the territory did not merit retention, he proceeded to have it evacuated in good order. The remaining military units were withdrawn in 271–72, and the remnants of Dacia's inhabitants were resettled in Moesia. For the sake of appearances, the Romans created a new province that bore the name Dacia and lay between Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior; Aurelianus established a mint in its capital, Serdica (Sofia). Aurelianus also evacuated the Danube-Rhine triangle (agri decumates) and pulled back the legions in Germania and Raetia behind a more easily defensible frontier line of rivers.

The last forty years of Dacia's history confirmed what had already been evident under Hadrian's reign: the province contributed little to the defence of the empire's central and Balkan regions. Dacia had not served to prevent attacks by Jazyges and Goths on the two Moesiae and Thrace. The tens of thousands of troops stationed in Dacia were incapable of defending its long borders. By the middle of the 3rd century, the recurrent attacks, and the resulting insecurity, had induced a mounting wave of emigration. Before turning his attention to the eastern front, Aurelianus took {1-122.} steps to consolidate the situation in the lower Danubian region. He evacuated the Romans from Dacia and established a shorter and more defensible border for the empire along the Danube limes, which were once again fortified. The V Macedonica legion set up camp in Oescus, which it had left 170 years earlier, while the XIII Gemina legion returned to Ratiaria. Having shortened the front line, Aurelianus was confident that the Danubian provinces were secure, and he headed eastward, taking with him part of the Illyrian army.

In addition to that you have East Roman sources about:
- Romans (=Latin speakers) crossing the Danube into the Hun territory in order to escape taxes;

where is the evidence that they was daco-romans??
latin speakers live in the whole roman empire! all of them was daco-roman?
Priscus wrote: "nomad people who can speak latin!" -> u think priscus didnt knows the history? he didnt knows that there should be live dac or daco-romans? why he didnt named those people? And why he could named the roxolans and jakuzas who lived near to Olt river?

- Romans being kidnapped and resettled North of the Danube by the Avars and the Slavs.

what? where u read this one? When avars kidnapped romans they sold them as slavers... the huns, magyars and cumans did the same in their time!

i suppose this one is a new romanian idea how romans lived here after 3th c. !

Oh but they were writing in Latin. Only they wrote on tombstones, rings, bronze objects. Whatever they wrote on paper didn't survive.

ahh yes of course no any through 1000 years!

Not just a single large object. However that large object is relevant because is a special large object.

and in this object there is a signature: created by xy daco-roman!
fine evidence!
every roman artifact is dated after 3th c. by romanian historicals! which is realy funny... cause they knows there is a long empty space in their history!

So if you find a donarium with the Latin inscription "I Zenovius have donated it" you can be sure Zenovius spoke Latin, the other Christians spoke Latin and the craftsman who made it also spoke Latin. and they all lived in 4th century central Transylvania. Or Dacia, if you prefer.

who dated this roman artifact? im sure it was creted in 3th c. !

So as I was saying before, if you decide to enter in a debate on this issue you better learn first a few things.

What a "donarium" is happens to be one of those things you have to know before proclaiming your ignorance in public

Did you miss the part that letter itself is a business letter of sorts?

It's a miracle such a thing was somehow archived and survived until nowadays.

i agree with u BUT we are talking about 1000 years! u understand? 1000!
if there are only 200 years where missing written mentions i must to say probably u are right but the current situation is realy different!
u have nothing only some roman artifacts... and romanians statments that those were created by daco-romans! thats all!
this is an easy evidence! its nothing!

In order not to forget how to read and write you need to have schools

Schools became the business of the church. The Church was dominated by the Slavs. Therefore the alphabet became Cyrillic.

huh,
1. the christians church language was latin in the roman empire
2. the ortodox church use cirill alphabet from 10 th c.
3. roman and ortodox church splitted in 1054

lets summarize your theory:
- daco-romans were christians from 3th c. and use cirill alphabet BUT they must be used latin because in this time this was the christians church language
- daco-romans used cirill alpahet because they are ortodox BUT they made latin insciption tombs in their cementary

and now who can say that u are right!? lol

Huh?! Vlach = shepherd or foreigner?

s I've said before, it won't hurt you to know what you are talking about before entering a debate. Though there is always an opportunity to learn at a later stage

huhu, yes Vlach mean sepherd and foreigner! i wonder u dont know this one!

Given the Slavs had reached the southern tip of Greece and controlled almost all of the Peloponesus in the 8th century it's kind of strange your theory the Vlachs came from somewhere more South, from a place unknown to the Slavs.

and slavs used their vlach word which mean sepherd!

Oh, but you need to know first about the Slav expansion into the Balkans in order to see the ridicule of your argument. Sorry, it would take me a while to adapt to your level of expertise

u should learn first whats your nation name means!

You mean the only surviving church?

yes of course again there are 1000 missed years in romanian history without church! no comment!

He, he, let me help you: Blacii is Vlachs in Latin.

If you don't trust me, ask Odovacar, he's Hungarian and he happens to be a graduate in history.

Blacii also a bulgar-turk group of people! if u dont belive check it!

Cumans, Pechenegs, Avars, Bulgars were all Turkic peoples and it's not only Anonymus who is guilty of this. Anna Comnena calls the Pechenegs "Scythians". The La Thene population who invaded Greece and then settled in Anatolia were called "Celts" or "Gauls" by the Greeks and the Romans.

the only problem with this that Anonymous knows exactly who is the cumans! In his time cumania was an exist state! Which had connection with Hungarian kingdom!

i hope u know where was cumania!
if not u will find this country in any medieval map (maybe except romanians maps) and what a surprise there is missed romania!

Is it that difficult for you to grasp the concept there were many different populations labeled as "Vlachs"?

the question is where is their motherland? it is in south-balkan close to albania!

Do you have an alternative opinion about Bessarabia? If so, please share.

Should i have any?
Im just wrote to Romano-Dacis when he talked about "hungarian revizionists" !
But he is a rumanian revizionist, isnt it?
u understand me?

How exactly does that make his chronology wrong? Hungary ceased to exist in either 1526 when the last king who actually ruled died while running away from the battlefield or in 1571 when a guy who never reigned as king of Hungary ceded his right to the HRE emperor.

Because after the battle of Mohacs 1526 the turks exit from Hungary! And only 1541 when they came back and capture Buda!

After 1571 kingdom of Hungary was ruled by a Habsburg king!

Correct me if I'm wrong but neither Wallachia nor Moldova were ever ruled by a Turkish pasha. Hungary was. And the Ottoman pasha ruled directly from Budapest.

1. After 1571 kingdom of hungary has a Habsburg king but tell me what was the nationality of your first romanian king in 19th c. ?
2. Principality of Transylvania was also a hungarian state and hadnt any rumanian ruler!
3. wallachia and moldavia hadnt at least 20 years when they was independent and not vassal of others!

The same Wallachia and Moldova kicked Hungarian butt time and again. Then in 1919 a certain army marched through the streets of Budapest

And wallachia and Moldavia were vassal of Hungarian kingdom time to time and paid tax for hungarians...

In 1914 Romania signaled a contract that Romania will not attack Hungary in the I. WW and whats happen? 1916 Romania betrayal this contract and attacked back of Hungary! Some months later Austro-Hungarian army
marched through the streets of Bukarest as well! But there is a big differenc because austro-hungarian army didnt try to rob the romanian national museum as rumanian army try to did in Budapest.

and later Romanian did the same betreyal in II. WW...

but its not a surprise we have some informations about rumanian betrayals...

So both "Gesta Hungarorum" and the Kepes Kronika (The Illuminated Chronicle) were written by Romanians? Wow!

both were created after 13th c. and used their own history situation!

Good, you're showing your true colors! I was really wondering when you would get to "Romanians = Gypsies" line of arguments

its just an interesting matter!
when romano-dacis said many gipsies speak hungarian in Transylvania and declare themselves as hungarians...
for this i just wrote a fact, hungarians use the "Oláh" word for "vlach", "gipsies", "romanian" from medieval ages... This is the true! There is no anything else what i want to say!

Gladly! Look up page 281 of the book "Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500-1250" on Google Books.

lol, u show me a book which was created by romanians?
fine proof!

[Dromikaites]

yes of course so no any written documents (copies) whioch was created by latinized daco-romans! thats all!
which mean there arent any written mention from daco-romans!

just dont forget this missing time is about 1000 years!! 1000! and u havent any! only some roman objects what romanians historicals says its created by daco-romans after 3th c.!

Explain the lack of Basque documents for 1500 years.

why not? we knows many business or private letter which was creted by romans in roman empire!

Private letters in general or private letters of people like Cicero, who happened to be somebody and therefore his letters got copied and stored in libraries?

and those tombs were created by romans in 3th c...

Not only in the 3rd century. You see, the archaeologists know a thing or two about dating objects.

Let me teach you the proper line of attack as a Hungarian irredentist: claim those artifacts are simply copies of the Roman originals and say those who made them didn't know the meaning of the inscriptions

give me a roman records about daco-romans fought against goths or gepidas or huns etc...

Huh?! The Romans handed over the control of the territory to the Goths. Why would the civilians fight the Goths or the Huns? Because they collected less taxes than the Romans?

where is the evidence that they was daco-romans??
latin speakers live in the whole roman empire! all of them was daco-roman?
Priscus wrote: "nomad people who can speak latin!" -> u think priscus didnt knows the history? he didnt knows that there should be live dac or daco-romans? why he didnt named those people? And why he could named the roxolans and jakuzas who lived near to Olt river?

It seems to me you don't understand why Priscus' report is important.

So here is it again:

1. It states the Huns were benevolent towards the populations of their empire. There was a marked difference between the Huns' behavior during a raid and the Huns' behavior on the lands they had already conquered;

2. It states the Huns were taxing much less their subjects;

3. It confirms the Latin speakers were freely emigrating North of the Danube river. This last aspect can explain why in spite of only 7 generations of Roman rule the population North of the Danube river kept speaking a Romance language: the original Latin speakers were joined by other Latin speakers after 273 AD.

what? where u read this one? When avars kidnapped romans they sold them as slavers... the huns, magyars and cumans did the same in their time!

Riight! So I should take your word over the Byzantines chronicles?

Not to mention we've just discussed about Priscus' report. What the Huns did was typical for all the smart nomads: increase as much as possible the population of farmers under their rule. Farmers can be taxed and they can feed the overlords who in turn can concentrate on their military training. If one trains on using the bow and the sword all day long one needs somebody else to plow the field for him.

But of course you have no clue about how the things worked, do you? Let me guess, your main source of information about those times is the movie "Attila", right?

ahh yes of course no any through 1000 years!

Do we have any Basque document before 1537?

and in this object there is a signature: created by xy daco-roman!
fine evidence!

If you have an object manufactured locally 150 years after the withdrawal of the Roman legions and if that object is inscribed in Latin with the sentence "I Zenovius donated this" you can bet your house Zenovius spoke Latin and the other church goers also spoke Latin.

every roman artifact is dated after 3th c. by romanian historicals! which is realy funny... cause they knows there is a long empty space in their history!

Who exactly is disputing the accuracy of the dating of those artifacts?

who dated this roman artifact? im sure it was creted in 3th c. !

You might be sure but let me doubt your qualifications in this area.

As I told you, the usual line of attack is not that those artifacts are poorly dated. Instead the revisionists claim they are 4th/5th/6th/ etc. imitations of older Roman objects.

i agree with u BUT we are talking about 1000 years! u understand? 1000!
if there are only 200 years where missing written mentions i must to say probably u are right but the current situation is realy different!

1500 years without any document in Basque language. Those Basques were probably teleported into Spain.

u have nothing only some roman artifacts... and romanians statments that those were created by daco-romans! thats all!
this is an easy evidence! its nothing!

Riight! Who exactly is disputing the accuracy of the dating? I mean who among the Hungarian academics. Not who among the football hooligans who yell "Nem! Nem! Soha!" on stadiums.

huh,
1. the christians church language was latin in the roman empire

Wrong! At the time we're speaking the language of the church was Latin in some areas, Greek in some other areas, Syrian in yet some other areas and Coptic in Egypt.

But of course you need to know a bit more about that time than what you find on the Anti-Trianon sites in order to realize how ridiculous that statement of yours is

2. the ortodox church use cirill alphabet from 10 th c.

Not really: in Greece and Anatolia they use the Greek alphabet You prove again ignorance is a bliss in your case

3. roman and ortodox church splitted in 1054

Yes and?

lets summarize your theory:
- daco-romans were christians from 3th c. and use cirill alphabet BUT they must be used latin because in this time this was the christians church language

So not only you have difficulties writing in English. You also have trouble understanding English, right?

The Christians from Dacia used Latin until it was replaced with Slavonic. When that happened the alphabet switched to Cyrillic.

- daco-romans used cirill alpahet because they are ortodox BUT they made latin insciption tombs in their cementary

As I said, you're ability of comprehending English is as impaired as your ability to write in English. I'm not holding that against you. So here is the same explanation again, in simple short sentences:

1. The Daco-Romans spoke Latin. In time Latin evolved into Romanian language and the Daco-Romans (who kept calling themselves "Romans") evolved into Romanians.

2. Before the Slaves converted to Christianity the language used for the religious service was Latin (later proto-Romanian). The artefacts of those times were inscribed in Latin.

3. After the Slavs converted to Christianity the religious service switched to Old Slavonic and the alphabet switched to Cyrillic.

Was that simple enough for you to understand?

huhu, yes Vlach mean sepherd and foreigner! i wonder u dont know this one!

and slavs used their vlach word which mean sepherd!

Massive

u should learn first whats your nation name means!

My nation's name means "Romans". We never ceased to call ourselves Romani (Romans in Latin language). Other nations called us Vlachs. Or Romanians (the name of my nation in English).

yes of course again there are 1000 missed years in romanian history without church! no comment!

Good.

Blacii also a bulgar-turk group of people! if u dont belive check it!

Where?

the only problem with this that Anonymous knows exactly who is the cumans! In his time cumania was an exist state! Which had connection with Hungarian kingdom!

And you think Ana Comnena didn't know who the Pechenegs were? He was alive when her father Alexios I crushed them. Yet she calls them "Scythians".

i hope u know where was cumania!
if not u will find this country in any medieval map (maybe except romanians maps) and what a surprise there is missed romania!

What part of the sentence "historians of that time were routinely using anachronistic names" don't you understand?

the question is where is their motherland? it is in south-balkan close to albania!

Which "Vlachs" are you talking about?
1. The Istroromanians (from Croatia);

2. The Meglenoromanians (from Macedonia and Greece)?

3. The Aromanians (from Macedonia, Greece and Albania)?

4. The Romanians (from Romania)?

Should i have any?
Im just wrote to Romano-Dacis when he talked about "hungarian revizionists" !
But he is a rumanian revizionist, isnt it?
u understand me?

How exactly is he a Romanian revizionist? Bassarabia is the republic of Moldova in case you don't know. A country with 65% Romanian population, which has Romanian as official language and whose national anthem is the same as the anthem of Romania.

And wallachia and Moldavia were vassal of Hungarian kingdom time to time and paid tax for hungarians...

Err, actually not.

That's why the Hungarian kings attempted on occasions to collect. And we both know how that ended, don't we?

One Hungarian king (Charles Robert of Anjou) had to disguise himself in a servant's clothes to escape (1330, Battle of Posada). Another one ran away with an arrow in his back (some even say and a second one through his balls, which prevented him from having children) - King Mathias Corvin, the battle of Baia, 1457.

In 1914 Romania signaled a contract that Romania will not attack Hungary in the I. WW and whats happen? 1916 Romania betrayal this contract and attacked back of Hungary! Some months later Austro-Hungarian army
marched through the streets of Bukarest as well!

You mean the Germans invited also the Austro-Hungarians to parade. The devil is in the details

But there is a big differenc because austro-hungarian army didnt try to rob the romanian national museum as rumanian army try to did in Budapest.

There was nothing to rob because the Romanian treasury was already in Russia.

and later Romanian did the same betreyal in II. WW...

You mean fighting against those Germans who handed Northern Transylvania over to Hungary?

but its not a surprise we have some informations about rumanian betrayals...

As in you take by force a piece of Romanian territory inhabited mainly by Romanians and then you're surprised we want it back?

both were created after 13th c. and used their own history situation!

Slow down, will you?

Both used older chronicles now lost. And both are backed by archaeological evidence.

lol, u show me a book which was created by romanians?
fine proof!

1. I've assumed you wanted a source in English available on the net. Google Kekaumenos by yourself and see what comes out.

2. Did you notice where that book was published? Cambridge University Press?

3. Do you know who Dr. Florin Curta is? He teaches Archaeology and Medieval History at the University of Florida.

[HorseArcher]

Alright guys... this will always be a hot topic between Romanians and Hungarians. I can go and say all kinds of things, what was good /bad , who is the culprit, who did what and when, but I won't, because it's pointless.

Romanians or Slovakians won't be Hungarians if you ask them, neither Hungarians will be either of the any , beside the fact, that back in the Astro Hungarian Monarchy or in the Kingdom they weren't categorized as such, since the "nationalism" only really started to kick off during the 19th century, by people who rose up against their ruler and king, trying to break free as well as causing a sharp divide between people, based on language and ethnicity.
It's neither the "Romanians" and neither the "Hungarians" what caused sharp divide , it's the ones who wanted to "divide and conquer" to split people by citing hatred and the result is those borderlines you see on the map, now slowly fading away again as people realize they aren't much different as people, just want to get by from one day to the next.

Anyway....we can argue about till the end of time what happened in the past, and "who was first", it wont bring us one inch closer to happiness, actually does the opposite. People remain hostile to each other and trying to find a scapegoat to blame their everyday problems.

Disagree if you want, but I think it's extremely ignorant to blame entire nations of people for the act of a few power-playing figures, who used divisive ideology to gain power and wealth.

People are brainwashed by their own government and system, you must do and say what they teach you and claim what you are and it serves nothing else, but to keep you as a tax-paying, hard working person dedicated for a specific government of a country.

Instead of trying to find, what divides us, everyone should be looking for what connects us..otherwise we are doomed to repeat history and it won't be you or me who benefit from it.

Hungary's population is on the decline, we're dropping like flies within our own borders, and it's not due to Slovaks or Romanians, it's due to poisonous policies and a rouge mafia-like Hungarian government, while across the borders, many Romanians are living in poverty and see nothing to look for in the future, and the Slovakian government continues to teach about anti-Hungarian ideology to further divide the people who just want to get by.

Anyway....

Now, I will be moving this to the History section of the forum, because this is what this thread about.

[Baron Vlad Felix]

Hey You!......Why you moved this thread from Political Mudpit here



Attachment 19428


Attachment 19429

[Dracula]

What does this pic represent,Vlad prietine ?

[Baron Vlad Felix]

.....I wait for your answer!

[Baron Vlad Felix]

What does this pic represent,Vlad prietine ?

..:sparta:....

[Romano-Dacis]

*sigh*, looks like I have to delve in my document of quotes...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In any case, let's just do a brief list of sources which mentions the Romanians living North of the Danube long before the Hungarian historians would like you to believe, or provide other information which contradicts the Hungarian theory:
Byzantine Sources:
-Kekaumenos clearly says the Vlachs of Thessaly come from North of the river Danube and Sava.
-Kinnamos, upon encountering the vlachs in the Carpathian passes in 1167, states "it is said they are colonists arrived long ago from Italy"

-Nicetas Choniates tells us that as Andronic Comnenos was heading towards the Cneazate of Hailici in 1164, but was captured by Vlachs along the way. The vlachs are clearly indicated as being North of the Danube.

-Maurikios' Strategykon and Acta Sancti Demetrii ('The Deeds of St. Demeter') mentions the existence of the Roman element north of Danube at the beginning of the 8th century and their Latin language

-Laonikos Chalkokondyles, a Byzantine writer, came to the conclusion in the 15th century came to the conclusion, after interacting with Vlachs from the Pindus mountains, that the Dacians spoke „a broken Italian.” This is of course the wrong conclusion, but it shows educated men generally regarded the Vlachs as Romanized Dacians.

-Procopius wrote of an Ant (Slavs in Moldova) who was able to pass himself off as a Roman officer because he knew how to speak Latin. This implies that there were people North of the Danube who could still speak Latin.[Procopius, De Bella Gothica, III, 14]

-Anna Komnenos wrote in the Alexiadis of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and Dacians North of the Danube. The Scythians and Sarmatians are obviously references to nomadic horsemen (Avars etc.) while the Dacians are most likely a reference to the Romanians. French historian Ed. Sayous is in agreement with this notion, and believes that the Hungarians must have encountered a large number of Latin-speaking people when they arrived in Pannonia. [Anna Komnenos, Alexiadis, VII, p. 227; Ed. Sayous, Histoire generale des Hongrois, III]

Italian Sources:
-Antonius Bonfinius wrote: “Because the Romanians are descendants of the Romans, a fact that even today is attested by their language, a language that, even though they are surrounded by diverse barbarian peoples, could not be destroyed.... even if all kinds of barbarian attacks flooded over the province of Dacia and the Roman people, we can see that the Roman colonies and legions that had been established there could not be annihilated”

-Francesco della Valle wrote in 1534: "the emperor Trajan, after conquering this country, divided it among his soldiers and made it into a Roman colony, so that these Romanians are descendants, as it is said, of these ancient colonists, and they preserve the name of the Romans"

-Thomas Tuscus wrote, on the expedition of the emperor Conrad III against the Turks, in a Crusade during 1140 AD: “The troops from Provence, from France, Lotaringia and Germany went towards Constantinople through Hungary, Valahia and Pannonia.” How could there be a "Valahia" without vlahs to populate it North of the Danube?

-Pomponio Leto in the 15th century wrote „Dacia is a province which extendes in both directions over the Danube, which today is called Volochia and is ihabited by Volohs. It is an Italian land, ever since the Dacians speak Italian.”

-Pietro Ransano, a biographer of Iancu de Hunedoara, came to the conclusion that the vlachs are Italians who speak a „broken Italian”

-Filippo Buonaccorsi Callimaco writes in the 15th century that Poles considered the Romanians as Italians, which is also why they give them the name Wlochy.

-In Descriptio Evropae Orientalis we are informed by the anonymous author that the vlachs in Macedonia are the descendants of the Roman shepherds (pastores Romanorum) who were forced out of Pannonia by the invading Magyars. [Anonymi, Descriptio Europae Orientalis, p.7 & p.17]

German Sources
-“Das Nibelungenlied”, composed in the year 1140. In Chapter XXII, we see a passage mentioning Vlachs and their leader, Ramunc. The context of the whole song was the marriage of Attila, and many cultures, each speaking a different language. From these, we find the duke Ramunc, who, together with seven hundred of his best fighters, scare away the horses of the Huns. The important thing here is not to take it as a literal account of events, but to show evidence that Romanians were in Transylvania in quite noticeable numbers in 1140, long before Hungarians are willing to admit it.

-Nicolaus Olahus, a Transylvanian Humanist of Romanian extraction, received in 1541 a diploma from Ferdinand of Habsburg. The diploma also said (I didn't find the original text, I'm translating after a translation): "your co-national Vlachs do not have a humble origin at all. Indeed, it is known they descend from Rome, the city of the emperors, and that they were settled in a very rich side of Dacia which is called Transalpina to stop the attacks of the ancient enemies in Roman provinces. That's why even today they call themselves Romans in their language."

Hungarian Sources:
-Annonymus

-Simon de Keza

We've spoken of both of these authors ad-nauseam. Dromikaites may want to add a few more, but 2 is sufficient for now.

Polish Sources:
-The Polish Chronicler Dlugosz writes in his Historia Polonica that in a battle in 1070 between the cneaz of Polotsk and Kiev, the cneaz of Polotsk had in his army “Russians, Pecennegs, and Vlahs.” [Historia Polonica, I. Dlugosz, I, p. 265]

Oriental Sources:
-The Armenian cartographer Moses Chorenatsi writes in the 9th century of a "the country which is called Balak” (in reference to Blachs/Vlachs) North of the Danube.

-The Turkic chronicle Oguzname written in 839 mentions vlachs (ulaqi) living East of the Carpathians, where they were encountered by the Pechennegs and Cumans and fought with them.

-Persian geographer Gardizi's treatise entitled The Jewel of Histories, written during 1049-1053 or in 1094, describes the ethnical and political reality of Eastern Europe, mentions "a nation from the Roman Empire (az Rum); and they are all Christians (...) and they are more in number than the Magyars..." (see V. Minorsky, "Hudud al Alam", London, 1938, Gibb Memorial Series).

Russian Sources:
-Nestor's Chronicle, (1097-1110), relating events from 862 to 1110, mentions Wallachians attacking and subduing the Slavs north of Danube and settling among them. He also mentions Wallachians fighting the Hungarians at the passes of the Carpathians and also mentions Roman shepherds (pastores romanorum) in Pannonia.

Papal Sources:
-Pope Pius II (1458-1464) Commentarium rerum memorabilium: "Valachi lingua utuntur Italica, verum imperfecta, et admodum corrupta; sunt qui legions Romanas ….."

-Enea Silvio Piccolomini (1501) "Transilvania..., it is inhabited by three peoples: the Saxons, the Szecklers and the Romanians. The Saxons had come from Saxony, and are strong men, used to the struggle…, the Szecklers are considered the most ancient Hungarians…, The Romanians are of Italian stock…"

-a similar episode can be extracted from the papal correspondence three decades later. In 1592/1593, trying to organize an anti-Ottoman alliance, the pope Clement VIII wrote to his messenger Alessandro Komulovic to rally the Wallachians and the Moldavians to their cause "riducendo loro anco a memoria, ch'essi sono colonna d'Italiani" (remind them they are a colony of Italians)

Norse Chronicles:
-Snorri Sturluson, an Icelandic chronicler, mentions the that North of the Danube there was a “Blokumannland” in 1114.

-In 1018/1019 the Romanians (Blokumenn) are mentioned in the Saga of Eymund. They participate alongside the Pechennegs in the Kievan wars for succession. Note that this is reflective of what Dlugosz, the Polish author, wrote as well.

-An early 13th century biography of St. Olaf of Norway [St. Olaf’s Saga and the Circle of the World], now preserved in the 14th century manuscript Flatejarbok, mentions Vlachs (Blokumenn) as being Sviatopolk’s allies (in the early XIth century). [Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1200, Florin Curta, Cambridge University Press. P. 303]

-A runestone from the Njoshem cemetery in Gotland dating from the 11th century commemorates a merchant Rodfos who was traveling to Constantinople through “The land of the Vlachs” where he was killed. The geographic region in question is clearly North of the Danube. [Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1200, Florin Curta, Cambridge University Press. P. 303]

"Rodvisl and Rodälv raised this stone for his three sons. This one after Rodfos. He [Rodfos] was betrayed by the Wallachians on his journey. God help the soul of Rodfos. God betray those who betrayed him [referring to Rodfos]."

===========================

Individually, one could say of each quote "oh, the author made an error", "he didn't know any better" or "this guy's just projecting into the past" but together?! Are we to believe they were all drunk when they wrote this? If I were to go to court and tell the judge "your honor, I wasn't there personally to see it, but these 20 people do confirm it" the case would be open-and-shut. This brings up 2 questions:
1) Why can't Hungarians admit they're wrong (especially since their opinion on the origin of the Romanians changed completely in the 19th century, before that they also believed in Daco-Roman Continuity).
2) Why does it matter? Let's say the absurd happens and it's proven, by some miracle, that Hungarians were there before the Romanians. What are you going to do about it? You can't claim any territory because of it, since by doing so, you would forfeit Hungary completely to the Slavs (let's not forget Greater Moravia controlled the region before the Magyars crossed the Carpathians). Therefore, not only do you have nothing to gain with your polemic history-writing, but you have everything to lose.

BTW VLAD, why did you post the Hungarian 19th century romanticist propaganda interpretation of Posada? I much preferred the 14th century illuminated chronicle version, with the Hungarians getting crushed in a chasm.

[snipa]

Explain the lack of Basque documents for 1500 years.

what, OMG pls check history of Basque! There is no any common things between situation of romania and situation of Basque...

you stated that basque was romanized or what else? OMG

Private letters in general or private letters of people like Cicero, who happened to be somebody and therefore his letters got copied and stored in libraries?

Lol, u cant change the fact, romanized daco-romans didnt make any written documents through 1000 years! Thats all!

Let me teach you the proper line of attack as a Hungarian irredentist: claim those artifacts are simply copies of the Roman originals and say those who made them didn't know the meaning of the inscriptions

again, we discuss about history from medieval ages!

Huh?! The Romans handed over the control of the territory to the Goths. Why would the civilians fight the Goths or the Huns? Because they collected less taxes than the Romans?

Why? Because it was their land! If someone invaded your country what will u do?

Huh?, show me any records about daco-romans lived under Huns control!

And this idea is realy nonsense, just imagine: Romans legio leaved the area and left their roman civilians there? OMG
yeah, romanian fiction project is working!

It seems to me you don't understand why Priscus' report is important.

So here is it again:

1. It states the Huns were benevolent towards the populations of their empire. There was a marked difference between the Huns' behavior during a raid and the Huns' behavior on the lands they had already conquered;

2. It states the Huns were taxing much less their subjects;

HAHAHA OMG
did u learn this from romanian book? Nice!

3. It confirms the Latin speakers were freely emigrating North of the Danube river. This last aspect can explain why in spite of only 7 generations of Roman rule the population North of the Danube river kept speaking a Romance language: the original Latin speakers were joined by other Latin speakers after 273 AD.

again, where is the evidence that this people were daco-romans????
u think priscus didnt know the history? He didnt know who was the dacs?

Do we have any Basque document before 1537?

Basque was systematical romanized area? U find anything from a Basque-roman theory?
inform me when u have some knowledge about basque!

If you have an object manufactured locally 150 years after the withdrawal of the Roman legions and if that object is inscribed in Latin with the sentence "I Zenovius donated this" you can bet your house Zenovius spoke Latin and the other church goers also spoke Latin.

1. who state that this object was created 150 years after the withdrawal of the Roman legions? romanian historicals? LOL nice proof!
2. dont u think that there is many other possibilities how this object was in dacia, ex. raided campaings by a nomadic tribes etc...

1500 years without any document in Basque language. Those Basques were probably teleported into Spain.

again?
are u a basq? OMG pls check the history of basque!

Riight! Who exactly is disputing the accuracy of the dating? I mean who among the Hungarian academics. Not who among the football hooligans who yell "Nem! Nem! Soha!" on stadiums.

what are u talking about?

Wrong! At the time we're speaking the language of the church was Latin in some areas, Greek in some other areas, Syrian in yet some other areas and Coptic in Egypt.

wrong? what wrong?? check when was founded the greek church in greece!
what language of the church was used by daco-romans?

But of course you need to know a bit more about that time than what you find on the Anti-Trianon sites in order to realize how ridiculous that statement of yours is

boring!

Not really: in Greece and Anatolia they use the Greek alphabet You prove again ignorance is a bliss in your case

when and where?
evidence? and how is it connect to daco-romans?

The Christians from Dacia used Latin until it was replaced with Slavonic. When that happened the alphabet switched to Cyrillic.

evidence? Why they switched to Cyrillic? Where is their church in transylvania?
I help u:
hungarian(romanian); hungarian built time ; romanian built time
Arad(Arad) 1139 1865
Beszterce (Bistrita) 1288 19th century
Bethien (Beclean) 15th century 19th century
Bonchida (Bontida) 13th century 18th century
Brassó (Brasov)* 1223 1495
Fogaras (Fagaras) 16th century 17th century
Fugyivásárhe1y (Osorheiu) 13th century 18th century
Gyu1afehérvár (Alba-lulia) 11th century 1600-1601
Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) 12th century 1796-1797
Lugos (Lugoj) 15th century 1759
Marosvásárhely (Targu-Mures) 14th century 1750
Nagyenyed (Aiud) 14th century 20th century
Nagyszeben (Sibiu) 14th century 17th century
NagyvArad (Oradea) 1093 1784
Piskolt (Piscolt) 14th century 1869
Temesvár (Timisoara) 1323 1936
T6vis (Teius) 13th century 17th century
vizakna (Ocna Sibiului)* 13th century 16th century

so pls, forget the daco-romans theory! your first vlach church was built in wallachia around 13th c!

1. The Daco-Romans spoke Latin. In time Latin evolved into Romanian language and the Daco-Romans (who kept calling themselves "Romans") evolved into Romanians.

Daco-romans like nation newer exist! This theory was appear in 19th c. In the first time it was roman-romanians and later switched to daco-romans!
This is a simple fiction because romanians cant accept that they are a sepherds from south-balkan!

2. Before the Slaves converted to Christianity the language used for the religious service was Latin (later proto-Romanian). The artefacts of those t
times were inscribed in Latin.

No evidence! No latin written mentions by daco-romans! its a simlpe lie!

3. After the Slavs converted to Christianity the religious service switched to Old Slavonic and the alphabet switched to Cyrillic.

There are many old slavic church which was built before 10th. c! When was built the first vlach church? 13th c. U cant change the facts!

My nation's name means "Romans". We never ceased to call ourselves Romani (Romans in Latin language). Other nations called us Vlachs. Or Romanians (the name of my nation in English).

your nation name "vlach" which mean sepherd and foreigner! its realy funny that a vlach dont know whats mean his nation name!

And you think Ana Comnena didn't know who the Pechenegs were? He was alive when her father Alexios I crushed them. Yet she calls them "Scythians".

And? Byzante also called hungarians as turk and scythians!
So Anonymous used cumans instead of vlach? lol

Which "Vlachs" are you talking about?
1. The Istroromanians (from Croatia);

2. The Meglenoromanians (from Macedonia and Greece)?

3. The Aromanians (from Macedonia, Greece and Albania)?

4. The Romanians (from Romania)?

Those vlach people has a common motherland which was in south-balkan near to albania!

How exactly is he a Romanian revizionist? Bassarabia is the republic of Moldova in case you don't know. A country with 65% Romanian population, which has Romanian as official language and whose national anthem is the same as the anthem of Romania.

for me this one is not important! but just a question is it part of romania or not? Not! When u say bessarabia is romania mean u cant accept this fact! right? whats your oppinion the "bessarabia is romania" is a revizionist statement or not?

Err, actually not.

not? how was founded wallachia and moldavia? both were created by hungarian support! thats all! u like or not this is the true!

That's why the Hungarian kings attempted on occasions to collect. And we both know how that ended, don't we?

One Hungarian king (Charles Robert of Anjou) had to disguise himself in a servant's clothes to escape (1330, Battle of Posada). Another one ran away with an arrow in his back (some even say and a second one through his balls, which prevented him from having children) - King Mathias Corvin, the battle of Baia, 1457.

This was another betreyal from vlach! Basarab promised to Charles Robert that he accept again his vassal status. The king adoptedd basarab's offer and back to Transylvania. His army was led by vlach sepherd through the mountains and basarab made a trap...
But is it important? Later in 1344 june 15 Basarab's son accepted his vassal status again in Brassó!

You mean the Germans invited also the Austro-Hungarians to parade. The devil is in the details

LOL learn a little history!

You mean fighting against those Germans who handed Northern Transylvania over to Hungary?

I mean romanians made another betreyal again! As they did many times in the past!

1. I've assumed you wanted a source in English available on the net. Google Kekaumenos by yourself and see what comes out.
2. Did you notice where that book was published? Cambridge University Press?
3. Do you know who Dr. Florin Curta is? He teaches Archaeology and Medieval History at the University of Florida.

LOOOOL, correct me but Florin Curta has romanian origin or not? Thats all!

[Dracula]

LOL learn a little history!

OK kiddie. Now do you have something on the subject to oppose to the many sources of Romano-dacis or I should declare you the most childish debater on TWC who just repeats what some perverted scholars in Hungaria say in spite of all what the international community claims ? Do you understand how low level and unserious your position is ?